Do you plan using Btrfs soon ?

Submitted by Anonymous on Sun 1 Jul 2012

Tags: none.

 

Yes  <-> 24%373 votes
No  <-> 36%558 votes
huh ?  <-> 38%596 votes
Total 1544 votes

Posted by mcortese (85.158.xx.xx) on Mon 2 Jul 2012 at 17:42
[ View Weblogs ]
I did, I won't.

In fact I tried to use it as the main file system on a fresh install of Wheezy: I aborted the installation when I saw it was still at 30% and crawling after a couple hours. A second installation with ext4 was flawlessly completed in less than 30 minutes.

My netbook only sports SSD, no rotating disks. Could that be the cause of the issue?

[ Parent ]

Posted by mcortese (95.131.xx.xx) on Tue 17 Jul 2012 at 15:36
[ View Weblogs ]
I'm replying to my own comment, as I run into this comment that shed some light on my case: bad performance is caused by dpkg fsyncing too often.

Apparently, the issue was mitigated with kernel 3.5. Directly from Chris Mason's pull request:

This includes a fairly large change from Josef around data writeback completion. Before, the writeback wasn't completed until the metadata insertions for the extent were done, and this made for fairly large latency spikes on the last page of each ordered extent.

We already had a separate mechanism for tracking pending metadata insertions, so Josef just needed to tweak things a little to end writeback earlier on the page. Overall it makes us much friendly to memory reclaim and lowers latencies quite a lot for synchronous IO.

[ Parent ]

Posted by ajt (89.240.xx.xx) on Sat 7 Jul 2012 at 16:22
[ View Weblogs ]

I said no because I'm happy with ext3 or XFS. My server runs XFS and that's been very stable, never had an issue ever. Ext3 on my other boxes, it needs routine fscking on boot and it does fragment quite a bit between fscks (30 boot interval). My next systems will probably be ext4 because it's a natural progression from ext3 and I think it will be the Debian default by then.

Btrfs is supposed to be really good but I'll wait a bit before I take the plunge.

--
"It's Not Magic, It's Work"
Adam

[ Parent ]

Posted by Anonymous (192.75.xx.xx) on Wed 11 Jul 2012 at 16:10
Still have lots of servers running Reiser. I've had better luck with Reiser than XFS. I have been using ext4 on some new server but recently have started using btrfs. We will see how it does.


-- Peter

[ Parent ]

Posted by Anonymous (178.203.xx.xx) on Sun 19 Aug 2012 at 12:24
I'm missing to option "let's wait and see". I've heard a few talks about BtrFS and it seems to have some interesting features, but I don't want to be the first to test them.

If BtrFS is well tested I might consider switching to it, when I have to set up a new machine. No need to change the running ext4 system ;-)

[ Parent ]

Posted by alexandermironov (121.45.xx.xx) on Wed 5 Sep 2012 at 00:00
I plan at least trying it at some stage. To be honest I have not heard of it before but it looks quite promising.

[ Parent ]

Posted by Anonymous (84.74.xx.xx) on Wed 12 Sep 2012 at 13:14
I use XFS for almost every machine and it works really good...nearly perfect.
I wanna let btrfs mature a bit and then i would switch because of de Check-summing and the transparent compression...but check-summing is the most important thing for me (data erosion on slow high-density hard-drives)

[ Parent ]

Posted by Anonymous (72.160.xx.xx) on Tue 18 Sep 2012 at 05:02
My main reason for Debian not being my primary O/S is ZFS. Once btrfs equals the level of quality i get with ZFS, I'll leave FreeBSD and head back to Debian as I do tend to like the userland a bit better in linux.

[ Parent ]

Posted by Anonymous (99.252.xx.xx) on Mon 24 Sep 2012 at 01:15
Like most, I do not use BTRFS yet (mainly due lack of disc check/repair options); but I have tried it a few times with various media. It seems to be quite unstable still (as of kernel 3.5), but it has great potential as an alternate filesystem in the near future. Currently BTRFS is quite slow on disc drives, but with the right settings, it seems to really excel at running on solid state drives and especially on SD cards.

With (forced) compression enabled, solid state mode enabled, and a few small changes to the default settings, BTRFS seems to out perform the others on an SD card when testing it on my Vostro 3500 laptop. After my hard drive failed earlier this year, I was able to use this on a 16GB SD card for several months (with heavy usage) before the card finally wore out. It would be interesting to see someone benchmark this using SD cards as the media instead and see how this effects the outcome.

[ Parent ]

Posted by mcortese (85.158.xx.xx) on Thu 4 Oct 2012 at 14:27
[ View Weblogs ]
Would you mind detailing what the "right settings" are, that would make btrfs shine on a SSD? I might reconsider my decision to stick to ext4 for the next test install of Wheezy.

[ Parent ]

Posted by Anonymous (80.239.xx.xx) on Sat 29 Sep 2012 at 09:14
No, because i happy user of Reiserfs 3 (and unhappy of ext4).

[ Parent ]

Posted by Anonymous (74.117.xx.xx) on Mon 8 Oct 2012 at 16:39
Using it currently on Fedora 17 x86_64, Seems to be working fine for the most part, but takes a long time to log in after reboot. I assume this is a cacheing issue, since I see high wait states during the login.

[ Parent ]

Posted by Anonymous (217.69.xx.xx) on Thu 11 Oct 2012 at 13:13
a link to what btrfs is would be useful, given the majority so far voted "huh?"

[ Parent ]

Posted by Anonymous (15.195.xx.xx) on Fri 26 Oct 2012 at 11:31
NO, I'll stick to ZFS.

[ Parent ]

Posted by Anonymous (77.251.xx.xx) on Wed 31 Oct 2012 at 10:20
promising but needs to equal ZFS in terms of stability before I will start using it.

[ Parent ]

Posted by Anonymous (109.242.xx.xx) on Wed 31 Oct 2012 at 21:12
I'm using btrfs on multiple machines two years now. Never had any problems. One note though: It really gets slower as you create more snapshots. But I don't really care, because for my use, a machine with enough RAM has everything cached, so I can only take notice on this slowness when I reboot, which is really rare.

[ Parent ]